Forum Post: More Poisonous Than They First Admitted
Posted 9 years ago on July 12, 2014, 10:25 a.m. EST by shoozTroll
(17632)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Ahhh, the wonders of libe(R)tarian business models, although fined approximately $11,000 by OSHA, it turns out they lied about how toxic MCHM actually is.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/11/west-virginia-water-toxic/
Let's hope civil suits will be allowed in the courts.
In related research, someone thought it was necessary to find out the obvious.
We all live downstream.
We the People need a mechanism for bringing Criminal Charges and Justice. Big Oil could not care less if the Great Lakes turned black, and there is not enough USG remaining to offer protection.
That means we have to take back control of the courts. Including myriad State Supreme courts as well the SCOTUS, most of which are currently under corporate control.
Huh - in related news - Taking a page from Papa Frank?
Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 10:54 AM PDT Group Representing 590 Million Christians Divests From Fossil Fuel
by ericlewis0Follow
Query - Is this all just battered and beaten religious public relations? Or are there actual sanity outbreaks happening?
Time will tell, but at his stage, I would think it was mostly a PR move.
Outbreaks of sanity are rather rare.
Let us hope not as we need a world wide pandemic.
Baby steps seem to be all that we can take.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/11/3459115/new-jersey-back-into-rggi/
Why rely on research provided by ANY corporation?
exactly - it should never happen - but unfortunately it seems to be the norm. I mean - why would they lie? HEH.
Good question.
The official answer is that it costs money to fund independent research.
At least they did that for the Great Lakes oil spill, if only for the programming.
I found it interesting that the current through the straights changes direction so often. I didn't know that.
The government can afford to give other grants.
[ edit ] Hmmmm - how about if the government just required their institutions to do the needed work? EPA FDA CDC etc etc etc et-puke - what's wrong with those institutions anyway - too many Chiefs and no workers?
edit-> Has anyone ever considered that public surveillance is looked at wrongly? Instead of surveilling the public the public should be surveilling government and government institutions as well as corp(se)oRATions etc.
Ok OK "clap clap" lets get the cameras rolling and the mic's operational - we go live in 5 4 3 2 1 . . . they're on the air..................
You do realize that those agencies have lost quite a bit of funding. Yes?
Yes - yes they have - they have been under attack for a long time - but if the gov has money for grants - they damn well better have the money for proper funding of necessary agencies and the work that they are supposed to be doing.
Just sayin.
http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget
Not too much change in EPA funding over the years.
Personally I doubt Nixon had any intentions in helping the environment when he created it.
They do have government money for grants. All of the agencies that we think are vital have been hit with cutbacks in an effort to make them unable to function.
So, we have things like this: http://water.epa.gov/type/lakes/cllkspgm.cfm
How much money would it take to see change?
http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget
This is an honest question. It may have more to do with priorities and payoff than actual monitoring, if they are blowing through these levels of money a year and everything seems to be getting worse. I mean, where are all these EPA people on fracking? Literally injecting chemicals into the ground, having to cut all the regulations first, and then giving them the go ahead at will.
It may be more of a brain dead population problem than a money problem.
Well, $267,955 went to payroll and benefits. So, we know where it is not going.
The EPA is working on a study that will not be completed until the end of this year. Notice it states at the request of congress http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy
Check out the question and answer guide so that you know what it won't do.
Also, here are the regions and you can locate the clean up sites by region and it shows the amount of money for "monitoring".
http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa#pane-4
One item from the list of what they do:
federal laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively;
What this tells me is that for the agency to do more it would need the funding to enforce and secondly if there is something that should be enforced and it's not or doesn't have teeth and/or doesn't exist then federal laws should be examined.. So those are the two areas that need to be focused on.
The primary problem, currently, is the number of ways that the EPA is being jacked with by those on the right including libertopians in the removal of regulations and and making every action that the EPA takes and turning it into an it's-not-fair- I was penalized a huge political drama.
Thats kinda what Im saying. Do we really need a study to show us that injecting the ground with massive amounts of chemicals is a bad idea? The fact that tons of regulations have to be removed- again, where is the EPA on this- just to get the fracking started should be all the evidence that is needed.
A billion dollar study that is probably going to tiptoe around the entire thing, and nothing will change as a result of it anyways. These are the types of things I have zero patience for.
If you are going to use tax payer money to come out with a half ass study on something as obvious as that, that group should be hung and replaced with a group that has some common sense and a real will.
Of course, we dont get to vote for the EPA positions so the chance of it ever changing is minimal.
We have serious systemic problems in the EPA, the entire governing mechanism of it is deeply flawed, and the system as a whole is on board with the corruption as the following link shows:
http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2014/05/05/democrats-supported-fracking-schumer-says/
If you want Congress to listen then yes, yes, you do need a study. That is how it works.
Further, kicking rocks because an agency doesn't do what you want it to do without specifically targeting what it is that you want it to do means that nothing changes.
You shouldn't vote for the EPA positions. It would be entirely too politicized. It means that when you select candidates for elections that your questions need to get real specific because the jobs are going to get real specific.
Sorry, Turbo, I don't want to hear what you can't do but what you can do.
As of right now the only thing the population is allowed to do in terms of the EPA is vote for politicians who fund/appoint them. Its an extremely closed system, its isolated, its a mess internally, and the people who appoint the leadership positions are all in bed with the oil men. And with the revolving door of EPA, FDA and USDA with the mega corporations, its so out of control.
Im not sure what to do besides attempt to create something new and overthrow it, but thats a shit ton of work and the population is not engaged at the level, not even close.
Suggestions?
I gave you suggestions. Yes, indeed, you need to target elected or candidates with better questions. No, if you cannot identify or target what you want currently then overthrowing it will provide nothing.
"you need to target elected or candidates with better questions"
Asking questions to someone who is openly accepting oil money, on their views on fracking, is pointless and quite frankly a pathetic way to live life. We already know the answer, more lies is not going to change anything.
And yes, sometimes something is so bad it must be overthrown, without a good idea of what to replace it with. As it stands right now the EPA is openly helping the frackers, side by side slowly getting it all legal etc.
I mean, look at this nonsense!! http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-09/epa-considers-requiring-disclosure-of-fracking-chemicals.html
This is absolutely insane. I know you aren't fuckin stupid, and neither am I, and I am insulted that things like this are happening and embarrassed that its continuing. Ive had it.
I would be fine with that, as of right now we have people accepting millions from fossil fuel corporations who then appoint the monitors, and that clearly is never going to work.
Anytime I hear "that is how it works" or "thats just how its done here" from any organization I immediately realize the situation is stagnant and chances of change are small. I mean, really, we need a study to tell us injecting all of this shit is a threat to ground water? If that is the level of common sense judgement that is required to take action, we are beyond fucked already, right?
That is a completely unacceptable method or organizing in any other aspect of our lives. More than likely at the end of playing the "why" game, we end up with money in politics as usual.
No, if you want Congress to pay attention then you need to have studies to support what you want. That is with anything. This is your government. It belongs to you. Go to broad or pretend that it's too hard and they have you by any part of your anatomy they like. You won't care.
Just crying about it doesn't resolve issues.
And what I am saying is that according to the historical charts, the funding is very in line with how its been, and expecting the people taking money from fossil fuel and chemical companies to then regulate said companies is an insane policy by the people. It makes 0 sense. Its insane, ridiculous and embarrassing.
The fuckers are corrupt, and Nixon had no intentions of helping the planet when he created it, and the agency as a whole gets a grade of F since its inception because it was created by the very people and controlled by the very people its suppose to be regulating since day one.
The problem is corruption. Its been identified since day one. I know Greenpeace activists with more self respect and decency and ability to lead than the criminals that run the EPA. Fuck em.
Well we've done a few things to try to get more alternative measures into the marketplace locally, very limited success, so we are trying to do somethings.
All Im saying is that giving them a pass for not having enough money when there are companies openly injecting massive amounts of chemicals into the ground in front of them, and many of them themselves formerly working at companies like these, is kind of giving them more credit than they deserve.
They have failed horribly, and anything less than a total overhaul will change nothing. You cannot force people to do something they dont want without massive public pressure, as in "these crazies might come after me" and we the people get absolutely no say in who runs the agency anyways.
What Im trying to convey is these fucks deserve no credit, and I don't want to hear them bitching about money when they don't have the nuts to do anything anyways, nor do most of them want to.
If you cannot identify and target it then you can't resolve it.
This is what I am talking about when I say defund it until it doesn't work and then bitch cry. The enforcement of federal laws indicates that it comes from congress.
What they can fund and what they do fund are two very different things, and you know as well as I, that adequate funding for most monitoring and studies was cut to less than skeletal levels for these agencies long ago, and that's why they are FORCED to rely on information from the corporations they are supposed to be monitoring..
http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget
This is an honest question- how much money would the EPA need on a yearly basis to get it through their heads that injecting the ground with chemicals to create fuel for consumption is probably not the smartest move.
Who would even humor this nonsense? Apparently them: http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy
Perhaps we need to realize its not a funding issue, but a simple issue of who is working for who. I tend to look at blaming it on funding when they are taking that much of our money, and allowing all of this to go on, as giving them a plea bargain deal.
Honestly, you would need to tell me how much has been cut at both the federal and the State level, as well as how many laws were passed to limit their abilities to do their job..
Also it would be useful to know how much corporations have spent fighting ANY regulation.
A recent for instance.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/alabama-energy-election-chip-beeker-terry-dunn
I think its all a rigged game too, Im just amazed at how much money that Nixon's little pet project blows through on a yearly basis, and we see things right in front of our eyes that never get fixed.
Doesnt the federal money get distributed to the states? Im not sure on that. Im also not sure on the laws passed so they cannot do their job, but its corporatist paradise in the US so I'm sure there are tons.
Whiskey
Tango
Foxtrot
How is that an answer to my question?
How much as been cut and by who and for what purpose was it cut?
It would seem that you are the one rigging this conversation.
Im not sure what you are talking about, as this shows there really hasnt been any huge cuts: http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget
The budget has been on a constant uptick for a long time. Who cut it- the politicians. Why- thats what they are paid to do via donations.
I don;t know about the laws that have been passed to keep them from doign their jobs, perhaps you can shed some light on this? Im sure there are tons, as thats the model this country function on.
Those are RAW numbers that don't explain much.
What of the laws passed that limit the EPAs ability to do it's job?
What of corporate and technological expansion?
What of new knowledge about the environment itself?
What of the absolute opposition as I demonstrated here, and the money spent?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/alabama-energy-election-chip-beeker-terry-dunn
You skipped over that.
Here are more current example of what I'm talking about.
Some folks that would very much disagree with your assessment.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/epa-funding-reductions-have-kneecapped-environmental-enforcement-20130303
A current event in Ohio.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/07/13/fracking-water-reuse-questioned.html
And the reality of corporate expansion in a drought stricken area.
http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2014/07/12/nestle-arrowhead-tapping-water/12589267/
That's just stuff I can find quickly.
Right, they are the raw numbers, as in the amount of money they get. If they are misplacing it, thats on them not the amount of money the taxpayer is giving them. The current levels are pretty much in line with where they always are, if you just look at that chart.
Like I said, the laws and opposition is certainly a factor, Im agreeing with you on this.
I just dont want to give these fuckers a pass, as the people that run the EPA are all former oil guys, monsanto guys, etc, and thinking if we just give them more money, things will change, is ignoring the underlying systemic problems that created this environmental mess.
You could double the amount of money you give them, if they are all monsanto, dupont and fossil fuel people running it, is it going to get you the desired results?
https://occupywallst.org/forum/more-poisonous-than-they-first-admitted/#comment-1038117
Yeah and??
I guess your only aim now is to confuse the entire thread.
As I said, You seem to want to rig this entire notion.
You still have patently avoided addressing a SINGLE thing I've posted.
that would be rigging.
If you're not familiar and don't want to read the information, what is it you're trying to say?
You said they are a skeleton of what they were, I posted this:
http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget
You are now off on all sorts of other topics besides financials that the EPA itself reports. Are you ok?
You want to show me that quote?
I explained patiently to you that those are RAW numbers that actually say little and then I asked you to prove your position.
You failed to do that, even as I posted more proof of my position.
And now you go 'round and 'round and 'round?
Yes.
I would call that rigging the conversation.
[Removed]
You're not dealing with single example, nor providing any.
You have not dealt with ANY of the laws written that over time have handcuffed not just the EPA, but MANY other agencies that were put in place to protect the public, nor the kind of monies spent in the example I provided from Alabama.
I get your rant, but that's all it is.
I'm not familiar with the laws that have been passed, thats why I keep asking you to further explain it. I'll see what I can find.
Here's one, well sort of: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/us/01water.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Another part of the corrupt system helping the other part. What a racket.
I see that you are still trying to "rig" this conversation by refusing address ANY example I've provided and instead staying hung up on the ONE thing I didn't.
I've read much of these limits over the years and am not going to find them all over again, just for the purpose of your request. ( some were already talked about over the years, here on the forum)
so instead, he's what a quick goggle provided.
http://www.foreffectivegov.org/blog/yet-another-house-bill-would-limit-epa%E2%80%99s-ability-protect-public-and-environment
http://www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/id=1202660396035/Justices-Limit-EPAs-GreenhouseGas-Regulations?slreturn=20140615143535
Now if you would like to address some of the examples I've already provided, that would be nice.
Ive already agreed with you, that laws are passed to screw people all the time in this country. We are in agreement here, Im just not as familiar with the specifics as you are, but Im sure its true. Its how the country is run.
Im not rigging anything Im agreeing with you.
Right, but then the arguments need to be driven towards allocations OR towards grants for that type of research that cannot be touched by a university or a corporation or a "ngo' with ties to a corporation.
No ties to a corporation?
That would be a tricky wicket.
Take a look at these http://www.grants.gov/search-grants.html?fundingCategories%3DENV|Environment
All of these would appear to be noble pursuits, although it's easy to see how any of them could be bastardized by corporate interests.
http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/grant-eligibility.html
Check out the eligibility.
Looks like pretty much anybody who can produce the paperwork to qualify for the grant in question.
What are you getting at?
Nothing more than what I said. It can be specifically tailored for a specific goal.
The question would be, "who controls the goal"?
So, we have to say the vehicle is either through the grant or the agency from the people through public higher ed (this is the tricky part). That's the part where the limitations would have to be narrowly tailored.
I guess I'm just trying to understand how this applies to the W. Virginia spill, or the study of a potential pipeline break in the straights.
perhaps it could be used against this potential?
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/17/wyoming-republican-wants-to-open-yellowstone-park-home-of-americas-super-volcano-to-drilling/
Could it get any more absurd?
It is absurd.
It applies in the manner that I stated. The initial question is why are we relying on a corporate studies when we have the means ourselves via the public either through an agency or grant narrowly tailored?
It's not like we are not going to face this again.
It's doable. Political will is the obstacle.
You would first have to dismantle any school's board of directors, as that is where the big connections come into the power position with the school. After that, the contracts for research equipment would have to be dealt with, which is quite the racket in itself.
Most of the answers to most of our problems are already there, there just isn't any political will to get it done as you stated. I would put it one step further and say there isn't any population will to put pressure on the politicians.
No. The reason that I did not major in a hard science is because begging for cash takes up a lot of time. Well, that and R&D was destroyed in this country by outsourcing.
Incentive.
Generally speaking you work in someone's lab, and they handle the grant money etc and pay you a salary.
Generally speaking-one would have to beg for money for specific types of research and to go into areas that you wanted to. Don't McDonaldize research any more than it has been.
I'm not, I have quite a few friends involved in it. You want to get into something specific, have to for your defense of your phd, but you have to find something that fits with the labs that are already there. Its not an ideal situation, for sure, but its certainly not begging for money full time nor should that be a reason to avoid the field because of that silly assumption.
One just got back from the Naval Research Lab for a week, I'll ask her about it.
I will say that a major problem with university research at this point is the focus is on publishing papers, not on the research. Even that is ass backwards at this point.
Welcome to the bizzaro world.
That information came from the Department head- I trust more than your friend.
Upon further thought, perhaps instead of looking at it as "begging for money" perhaps try looking at it as a small business person, needing to get contracts in order to keep the doors open? I'd pass that on to the Dept person you were speaking of, the last thing we need is are the chairs making science sound like a grovel session.
Oh, so now we change it verbally for pc appeasement. Turbo, it is what it is.
We have no shortage of STEM. None.
It doesn't matter. What I do now is work. 100%.
Where did this information come from? Its a bit disturbing that a Department head would tell someone that with the state of science in this country?
Well maybe they just didn't want you? Or maybe they just sucked? Because I can assure the physicists I know- like the one I live with- spend very little time "begging for money" in comparison to the rest of their work year.
Trust what you want, its a great field to be involved in, but its a lot to juggle. Its actual work.
Whiskey
Tango
Foxtrot
I already gave you one, that belies your statement.
http://www.freep.com/article/20140710/NEWS06/307100140/Great-Lakes-oil-spill-Straits-Mackinac-Enbridge-pipelines
What are YOU studying?
I can't think of a single major university without them.
Sometimes it's the will of the researchers, as in the U of M study.
I know, right? Which is why that I think that nailing it at the grant level as in tailoring it to a narrower criteria might be the answer.
Sometimes, it's in the serendipity of the researcher.
As in the example of a 12yr old girl, changing perceptions, that higher paid researchers failed to look at.
http://www.care2.com/causes/how-a-12-year-old-girls-science-project-changed-the-way-scientists-see-lionfish.html
All research tends to best if at least at the outset, it is broadly funded.
Until the point that it controls the results. Funding.
How about a law saying that funding to public universities, cannot control what is researched there?
Yep - in a - for all practical intents and purposes - in a closed system/environment - a closed system/environment much more fragile and easy to poison than some "experts" ( Businessmen and their shills/sellouts/quislings ) would have us KNOW/UNDERSTAND/REALIZE.
I am shocked - Shocked I say - who could imagine that a disaster or a potential disaster would be minimalised - minimalised by those responsible for the disaster or potential disaster? SHOCKED
From the article on line 5. A 61yr old piple through the straights.
Manshum noted that Line 5 “has been incident-free since it was constructed in 1953, and through even greater oversight, the use of new technology and ensuring all risks are monitored — and, where necessary, mitigated — Enbridge is committed to maintaining this incident-free record into the future.”
Do you trust that?
Oh - HELL No!
It took them 4yrs to deal with this, on a small river, that only flows in one direction.
http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2014/07/hold_the_dam_is_gone_cerescos.html
Is that how good their monitoring is through the straights?
[Removed]
[Removed]
Florida's "bat boy" Governor still needs convincing.
So.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/16/3460704/scientists-rick-scott-florida-letter/
I wish them luck, but I have my doubts.
From the Article:
Scott’s own $9.2 million mansion sits only 200 feet from the beach in Naples, Florida, and about a foot above sea level — putting it directly in the path of future storm surges as sea levels continue to rise.
Gotta wonder if denial boy has "adequate" storm insurance.
If it goes?
He'll just sell the property to WallyWorld.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/16/3460293/florida-forest-destroyed-walmart/
Wonder if the walton's will be planning ahead and build it on a pontoon platform?
Maybe....as long as the pontoons weren't built for Walmart stores.
Those aren't likely to float for very long.
Are they taking over the poor quality title from Kame-Apart K-Mart?
That was what they did to force kmart into bankruptcy.
You know, before they were bought by that libe(R)tarian that runs Sears (into the ground) these days?
This is getting a bit off subject.
So.....
Did you realize there are also a large number of polluted rivers in Europe?
I didn't realize it was this bad.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25737-the-most-polluted-rivers-and-streams-in-europe.html#.U8g3dmNCIxk
Heck - way back when - when I was an early grade elementary school-er - we were told how bad the water was in Europe and the scarcity of fresh drinking water - that was back in the early 60's.
Hmm,
Must be the source of this old European proverb.
"In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is freedom, in water there is bacteria."
No doubt
[Removed]
The level of intelligence with politicians will be greatly determined by not just the level of intelligence of the people doing the voting, but also their determination to get involved and be part of the process.
Welcome to Idiocracy.
You're not still ranting are you?
I can give you more information on Governor Scott, if you like.
And then of course there's the Koch brothers, and their libe(R)tarian infection..
Ranting online is what political chat rooms are for, no?
Perhaps they can have other uses, but as the comments column on the right shows....
So you want the information?
Ranting's fine, but a little more goes a long way.
I mean, as long as you insist on being partisan.
http://www.rickscottwatch.blogspot.com/
Plan on kidnapping his kids too?
Personally I could care less about Rick Scott, he'll get replaced most likely by Charlie Christ as the people will refuse to vote for someone outside the system, and the beat will go on uninteruptted.
Excuse me?
what are you accusing me of?
You lied about me in a previous conversation we had.
Why would you do that again?
Plus of course, you've already proven yourself to be purely partisan, so why would yuo naw claim be ambivalent?
Do you understand the level of criminality of Gov. Scott?
Let alone the Kochs?
Here ya go, if you want to start bashing the heart of the beast, how about speaking up against Israel FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE
http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/local/2014/07/17/tariq-khdeir-protest-israel-jerusalem/12772337/
Can't do it, can ya? Now why is that?
So that's what Mulally's done????
Strange, I never would have imagined.
So which one of those countries do you live in?
LOL
You mean like comments from the BIGGEST MSM media mogul the World has EVER known?
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/13/3459584/rupert-murdoch-climate-change-rubbish/
stupid and rich
Wealth of Stupidity
My guess would be that FLAKESnews won't be covering the GIANT global warming, "earth zit" that popped in Siberia, until they can claim it was done by Obama.
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/mysterious-hole-discovered-in-siberia-1605872539
Wow - now "that" is colossal out-gassing - wonder what touched it off - a bolt of lightning?
As of now, they are figuring it was caused by ice melting under the perma frost, but investigators are en route....
It will be interesting to hear what they find out. As of now, they don't know how deep it is, just that it's over 260ft across.
Ya gotta figure that something touched it off - as - what would cause a spontaneous combustion/explosion?
Currently they are proposing a methane "pop", released by melting permafrost.
There was no obvious fire from an explosion.
If so, it'll give the oil corporations something besides themselves to point at as a cause for global warming.
I've always figured that's what they were waiting for anyway.
The article did mention signs of combustion were present. Would be one hell of a high pressure bubble to pop that crater without it having been ignited. Being ignited - it would still be one hell of an explosion to open that crater.
Imagine those going off all over Siberia.
Or Alaska or Canada or.........
Kos had the best article so far.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/16/1314501/-Mysterious-Siberian-Crater-Found-at-End-of-the-World-May-Portend-Methane-Climate-Catastrophe#
It's a possible explosion, but no combustion.
More like an over filled balloon.
Hang on tight.
It's going to get weird.
7 quakes in 2 days in Oklahoma.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/texas/article/Answers-on-link-between-injection-wells-and-quakes-5620961.php
If they're not messing with the air, or water, they are messing with the ground beneath our feet.
Fracking = Quakes = from existing fault lines or from just busting up bed-rock in general = either way? = not good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hello Yellow stone...................